Lachapelle v St. Laurent Automotive Group Inc, 2025 ONSC 1956
Key facts:
Employment History: Jesse Lachapelle, a 28-year-old automotive technician, worked for St. Laurent Automotive Group (a car dealership in Ottawa) in two stints over roughly six years. He first worked there for about 4.5 years (Sept 2013 to Apr 2018) before voluntarily resigning to try another job. About nine months later, the dealership actively recruited him back as a “boomerang” employee, offering increased pay and immediate eligibility for benefits and vacation upon re-hire. The parties did not explicitly agree to treat his prior service as continuous for termination purposes.
Layoff in Pandemic: Lachapelle’s second period of employment lasted ~14 months (Feb 2019 to Mar 2020). On March 24, 2020, as COVID-19 lockdowns began, the dealership temporarily laid him off without pay. There was no contractual term allowing temporary layoffs, and he was not recalled to work. Lachapelle treated this layoff as a termination of his employment.
Lachapelle sued for wrongful dismissal, seeking pay in lieu of reasonable notice for termination.
Legal Issues
- Constructive Dismissal: Did the employer’s unilateral layoff of Lachapelle in March 2020 amount to a constructive dismissal (termination) at common law?
- Notice Period: If he was dismissed, what was the appropriate reasonable notice period for this 28-year-old, short-service employee – should his prior 4.5-year tenure and recruitment back (inducement) and the pandemic’s effects be factored into the notice length?
- Mitigation Duty: Was Lachapelle obligated to mitigate his damages by accepting an offer to return to work on different (reduced) terms, or otherwise find alternative work, thereby reducing the employer’s liability?
Court’s Analysis and Reasoning
Constructive Dismissal of Layoff: The Court held that the temporary layoff in March 2020 was a constructive dismissal of the plaintiff’s employment. In the absence of any contractual right to lay off staff, a sudden layoff (essentially a 100% reduction in hours/pay) amounted to a fundamental breach of the employment contract. Lachapelle was therefore deemed terminated as of March 24, 2020, the layoff date. The employer’s argument that the COVID-19 crisis was an excusing circumstance – essentially a force majeure defense – was rejected. The Court found that even though the pandemic created unforeseen hardships, it did not nullify the employer’s common law obligation to provide reasonable notice or pay in lieu of notice for a termination. In other words, the pandemic did not legally justify laying off an employee without compensation.
Reasonable Notice & Inducement: Having found a dismissal, the Court next determined the length of reasonable notice. Although Lachapelle’s second stint was only 14 months, the Court explicitly took into account his cumulative service (~6 years over two periods) and the circumstances of his rehiring. The Court found that the dealership had induced Lachapelle to return in 2019 with promises of better terms, so it would be unfair to treat him as a purely short-term employee. Weighing his age (28), position as a technician, and especially the inducement factor and loss of his prior secure employment, the Court decided on a seven-month notice period. This effectively recognized his prior service and the expectation of longer-term employment when he was recruited back. The court also noted the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the job market as a factor justifying a longer notice – Lachapelle’s dismissal occurred amid a pandemic hiring freeze, likely prolonging his job search.
Mitigation – No Obligation to Accept Lesser Role: The employer argued that Lachapelle failed to mitigate his damages because he did not accept an opportunity to return to work under modified terms (once the business reopened). However, the Court found he was not required to accept a substantially altered position to mitigate. An employer cannot insist that a wrongfully dismissed employee return to a materially lesser job or significantly reduced pay/hours as a way to reduce damages. Here, any offer to come back was on different terms (during or after the pandemic restrictions), and the Court held it was unreasonable to expect him to accept a fundamentally different job in mitigation. Therefore, Lachapelle’s refusal to return on those terms did not cut off his right to full notice damages.
Final Decision and Outcome
Judgment for the Plaintiff: The Court concluded that Lachapelle was wrongfully (constructively) dismissed and entitled to damages. The Court awarded Lachapelle pay in lieu of 7 months’ notice of termination, calculated based on his salary and benefits over that period. This award provided him compensation for the income he lost due to the premature termination.
The overall outcome reinforced that even during unprecedented events like COVID-19, employers cannot lay off staff without consequence unless they have a contractual right, and inducement can significantly extend the notice owed to short-service employees.
Recognition of Prior Service
The decision is a clear affirmation that prior service can meaningfully inform reasonable notice, even where employment is formally discontinuous and the employee voluntarily resigned before being rehired.
- Inducement Was a Relevant Factor
The Court used inducement as the mechanism through which prior service mattered. The employer actively recruited Lachapelle back, offered improved compensation, and immediately restored benefits and vacation entitlements. These facts signalled:
- An expectation of longer-term employment, and
- A reliance interest on the employee’s part that went beyond a typical short- service hire.
As a result, the Court held it would be unfair to assess notice as though Lachapelle were a disposable, 14-month employee. His prior service informed the gravity of the loss when he was dismissed.
- Prior Service Influenced Notice Length Without Being
Determinative Importantly, the Court did not simply add the two periods of employment together and award notice as if Lachapelle had six continuous years of service. Instead: The prior service was treated as an amplifying factor, not a mathematical one. It contributed to a seven-month notice period, which would be unusually high for a 28-year-old with only 14 months of service absent inducement.
- Practical Significance
The case underscores that employers cannot safely rely on short current service alone where: The employee previously worked for the employer for a substantial period; The employer initiated the re-hire; and The re-hire was accompanied by improved terms or signals of stability. Absent clear contractual language expressly limiting notice and disavowing recognition of prior service, courts may — as here — give that history real weight.
Bottom line:
Lachapelle confirms that prior service, though not legally continuous, can materially extend reasonable notice where re-employment is employer-driven and creates renewed expectations of permanence. The decision reinforces a contextual, fairness- based approach over formalistic service counting — particularly relevant in inducement and re-hire cases.
*Always seek legal advice. The above is for information purposes only.
Stephen Dugandzic received his Juris Doctor degree from the University of Alberta in 2013 and is Calgary-based. He previously practised with Bennett Jones LLP and Taylor Janis LLP before founding YYC Employment Law Group in 2018 and Evolution Legal in 2026.